- THIS ARTICLE
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Email this article to a friend
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Le Rouzic, A.
- Articles by Capy, P.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Le Rouzic, A.
- Articles by Capy, P.
Genetics, Vol. 169, 1033-1043, February 2005, Copyright © 2005
doi:10.1534/genetics.104.031211
The First Steps of Transposable Elements Invasion
Parasitic Strategy vs. Genetic Drift
Arnaud Le Rouzic and Pierre Capy1
Laboratoire Populations, Génétique, Évolution, 91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France
1 Corresponding author: Laboratoire Populations, Génétique, Évolution, Allée de la Terrasse, bât 13, 91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France.
E-mail: capy{at}pge.cnrs-gif.fr
Transposable elements are often considered as selfish DNA sequences able to invade the genome of their host species. Their evolutive dynamics are complex, due to the interaction between their intrinsic amplification capacity, selection at the host level, transposition regulation, and genetic drift. Here, we propose modeling the first steps of TE invasion, i.e., just after a horizontal transfer, when a single copy is present in the genome of one individual. If the element has a constant transposition rate, it will disappear in most cases: the elements with low-transposition rate are frequently lost through genetic drift, while those with high-transposition rate may amplify, leading to the sterility of their host. Elements whose transposition rate is regulated are able to successfully invade the populations, thanks to an initial transposition burst followed by a strong limitation of their activity. Self-regulation or hybrid dysgenesis may thus represent some genome-invasion parasitic strategies.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  J. M. Marshall The Impact of Dissociation on Transposon-Mediated Disease Control Strategies Genetics, March 1, 2008; 178(3): 1673 - 1682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Le Rouzic, T. S. Boutin, and P. Capy Long-term evolution of transposable elements PNAS, December 4, 2007; 104(49): 19375 - 19380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Murata, N. Kadotani, M. Yamaguchi, Y. Tosa, S. Mayama, and H. Nakayashiki siRNA-dependent and -independent post-transcriptional cosuppression of the LTR-retrotransposon MAGGY in the phytopathogenic fungus Magnaporthe oryzae Nucleic Acids Res., September 25, 2007; 35(18): 5987 - 5994. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Crombach and P. Hogeweg Chromosome Rearrangements and the Evolution of Genome Structuring and Adaptability Mol. Biol. Evol., May 1, 2007; 24(5): 1130 - 1139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Deceliere, Y. Letrillard, S. Charles, and C. Biemont TESD: a transposable element dynamics simulation environment Bioinformatics, November 1, 2006; 22(21): 2702 - 2703. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. L. Rouzic and P. Capy Population Genetics Models of Competition Between Transposable Element Subfamilies Genetics, October 1, 2006; 174(2): 785 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|